The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the concealment of income has not been proved and the penalty has been deleted by the Tribunal, criminal proceedings cannot continue.

Nirmal Singh, J.

1. A complaint under sections 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1, Muktsar, against respondent Dr. Usha Gupta, proprietor M/s. Bansal Nursing Home, Muktsar on the ground that respondent had not shown Rs. 1 lakh in the income tax return filed by her on 29-8-1988.

2. The respondent was summoned in those proceedings. During the pendency of those proceedings the respondent filed an application for dropping the criminal proceedings against her. The petitioner pleaded in the application that she is being prosecuted for an offence that she had paid Rs. 1 lakh to M/s. Uniscan and Sonics Ltd., Chandigarh, and this amount has not been shown by the respondent in her account books. In the application, it was further pleaded that the respondent filed a revised return in which she had shown the amount. Even though, the respondent claimed that she came to know that M/s. Uniscans and Sonics Ltd., Chandigarh had wrongly credited this amount. The revised return was filed to avoid the legal complications.

3. On filing of the revised return by the respondent, the assessment was reopened and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was taken as concealed income of the respondent by the complainant upon the petitioner. The petitioner again served notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the respondent and penalty proceedings were launched against her. The Income Tax Officer imposed penalty upon the respondent vide order dated 24-9-1991. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who maintained the penalty but reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 150 per cent to 100 per cent vide order dated 28-1-1992.

4. The respondent challenged the order of the Income Tax Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing penalty before the Tribunal. The appeal of the respondent was accepted by the Tribunal vide order dated 6-6-1994. The Tribunal while accepting the appeal observed that the respondent has not concealed income and imposition of penalty was set aside. On this ground, it was prayed that the proceedings may be dropped. The petitioner was given notice of the application. The petitioner filed reply to the application.

5. The learned Magistrate after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, dropped the proceedings vide order dated 13-10-1999. Aggrieved by the order, petitioner filed criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, which was dismissed on 8-6-2002. Aggrieved by which, the present petition under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed for quashing the orders passed by the courts below.

6. Mr. N.L. Sharda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below have erred in passing the order dated 13-10-1999 and 8-6-2002. He submitted that after recording the preliminary evidence, the respondent has been summoned to face the trial under section 276C/277 of the Act as the respondent has concealed the income of Rs. 1 lakh. He contended that charge against the respondent has been framed. After framing of charge, the proceedings cannot be dropped in the midway, as there is no such provision in the Cr.PC. He further contended that on the basis of the order passed by Tribunal, the criminal proceedings cannot be dropped. He also contended that those proceedings were for imposing the penalty whereas the proceedings under the Cr.PC can continue despite the fact that penalty has been waived off by the Tribunal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings cannot be dropped after framing of charge are without any foundation.

8. Section 245 Cr.PC deals with the provisions when an accused shall be discharged. Section 245 Cr.PC reads as under :

"245. When accused shall be discharged. (1) if upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be record